Nov13

Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Economic Crisis

1. Impacts of austerity measures and economic crisis on the enjoyment of human rights

1.1. A typology of austerity
1.2. Economic, social and cultural rights
1.3. Civil and political rights
1.4. Disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged and marginalised groups of people
1.5. Interdependence of human rights and intergenerational effects of austerity
1.6. Impacts on state capacity and the human rights protection system

Appendix 1 - European Social Charter: signatures and ratifications
Appendix 2 - European Code of Social Security (ETS No. 48): signatures and ratifications
Appendix 3 - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights: signatures and ratifications

Europeans are living through the deepest economic recession since the Second World War. What
began as a meltdown of the global financial system in 2008 has been transformed into a new
political reality of austerity which threatens over six decades of social solidarity and expanding
human rights protection across Council of Europe member states. The initial government
responses to the economic crisis were characterised by unprecedented fiscal and monetary
policies aimed at guaranteeing social protection while stimulating economic demand to prevent a
full-blown global depression. However, since 2010, many governments have focused on
austerity policies as emergency measures, often side-stepping regular channels of participation
and accepted democratic checks and balances. European and international institutions of
economic governance have also assumed a central role in enforcing austerity.

Many of these austerity measures - characterised by public expenditure cuts, regressive tax
hikes, reduced labour protection and pension reforms - have exacerbated the already severe
human consequences of the economic crisis marked by record levels of unemployment. The
whole spectrum of human rights has been affected - from the rights to decent work, an adequate
standard of living and social security to access to justice, freedom of expression and the rights to
participation, transparency and accountability. Vulnerable and marginalised groups of people
have been hit disproportionately hard, compounding pre-existing patterns of discrimination in
the political, economic and social spheres. Poverty, including child deprivation, is deepening and
is likely to have long-term effects. In some cases, the economic crisis is undermining the very
capacity of central and local authorities to deliver on the basic promises of a social welfare state
and ensure human rights protection for all.

Economic policy is not exempt from the duty of member states to implement human rights
norms and procedural principles. As embodied in international human rights law, civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights are not expendable in times of economic hardship, but are
essential to a sustained and inclusive recovery. There is growing national and international
jurisprudence on the implementation of human rights in the crisis context. This is particularly the
case for states' obligations to protect economic and social rights, avoid further erosion and
retrogression of these rights and prevent disproportionate impacts of austerity measures on
particular sectors of the population. The cross-cutting human rights principles of
nondiscrimination, equality, participation, transparency and accountability have a specific
significance in responses to the crisis.

Human rights standards do not represent precise policy prescriptions. Economic policy in times
of crisis requires a complex decision-making calculus, and governments enjoy a margin of
discretion in choosing the means for safeguarding rights in times of economic constraint which
best fit their circumstances. Nonetheless, human rights and equality do provide a universal
normative framework and operational red lines within which governments' economic and social
policies must function. This Issue Paper provides practical guidance to Council of Europe
member states in navigating the historic opportunities and difficult policy choices they face in
upholding human rights duties in times of economic constraint. The Commissioner proposes a
set of actionable recommendations and measures which help forge a new path along which
governments can align their economic recovery policies with their commitments to human rights
and equality. It is necessary to reinvigorate the European social model based on the foundations
of human dignity, intergenerational solidarity and access to justice for all.

National human rights structures (NHRSs) such as ombudsmen, human rights commissions and
equality bodies have an essential role to play in times of economic crisis. As statutory and
independent advocates of human rights and equality, NHRSs have great potential to promote
human rights-compliant responses to the crisis and protect people from discriminatory measures
which result in inequalities. They can take an active role in assessing policies and budgets
according to human rights standards and create platforms for civil society and government to
debate austerity measures. As accessible, low-threshold complaints bodies, NHRSs protect
people from infringements of their rights resulting from austerity. Governments should
strengthen the effectiveness and independence of NHRSs so that they are empowered to assume
a critical role in safeguarding human rights during economic crisis.

The Commissioner's recommendations

In order to ensure the effective and equal enjoyment of all human rights - civil, political,
economic, social and cultural - in times of economic crisis and fiscal austerity, the
Commissioner for Human Rights calls on Council of Europe member states to:

1. institutionalise transparency, participation and public accountability throughout the
economic and social policy cycle. Governments should provide timely access to such key
information as budget, tax and financial policies to enable civil society, parliamentary
commissions, national human rights structures and courts to monitor and provide oversight over
crisis responses. Disaggregated social indicators should be applied to collect data on the
cumulative effects of austerity measures on different population groups in order to measure
impact, identify disproportionate effects and design policies to protect disadvantaged groups.
There is a need to set up channels for social dialogue and citizen participation, in addition to
periodic elections, in order to take civil society's views into account in policy making on
austerity measures;

2. conduct systematic human rights and equality impact assessments of social and
economic policies and budgets. Ex ante and ex post facto assessments should gauge the present
and future impacts of austerity measures and budgets on the enjoyment of human rights. Audits
of fiscal policy should evaluate whether fiscal contractions are strictly necessary by identifying
all possible resourcing alternatives. Austerity measures should not be discriminatory and they
should remain temporary, covering only the period of the crisis. Funding levels have to be
restored when more resources become available;

3. promote equality and combat discrimination and racism. Comprehensive equal treatment
legislation should be fully implemented during the crisis period. Particular attention should be
given to combating racism and discrimination based on socio-economic status as a means of
preventing poverty. Positive measures in favour of disadvantaged groups, including women, are
necessary to address disproportionate and compound effects of the crisis and austerity measures.
Marginalised and disadvantaged individuals' access to remedies and assistance as victims of
discrimination should be facilitated by independent and effective national equality bodies;

4. ensure social protection floors for all. Governments should maintain social security
guarantees for basic income and health care to ensure universal access to essential goods and
services during the crisis. Governments should resist any pressure to undermine such basic
guarantees by ring-fencing public budgets to protect at least the minimum core levels of
economic and social rights at all times. There is a need to strengthen legal guarantees of quality
social protection for the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups of the population;

5. guarantee the right to decent work. The rights to fair and equal remuneration for equal
work, safe and healthy working conditions, collective bargaining, freedom from forced and child
labour, elimination of workplace discrimination, access to unemployment benefits and
compensation for employment-related injuries should be upheld during the crisis. It is essential
to ensure non-discriminatory access to employment and education. Positive measures in favour
of people with disabilities, Roma and women are needed to facilitate their labour inclusion.
Governments should adopt strategies that reduce unemployment from their current levels, with a
particular focus on youth and long-term unemployment;

6. regulate the financial sector in the interest of human rights. States have a duty to protect
individuals from infringements of their human rights by third parties, including financial
institutions. Transparent financial regulations should be adopted to provide accountability
mechanisms that penalise harmful practices and prosecute perpetrators. Adequate means of
redress and remedies have to be available to those adversely affected by financial sector
improprieties. Vital public funds should not be used to rescue financial institutions that engage in
short-sighted and irresponsible practices;

7. work in concert to realise human rights through economic co-operation and assistance.
Member states should consider the human rights impacts of their decisions taken within
international and European institutions of economic governance. Governments have a
responsibility to demonstrate that their decisions prioritise, and at the very least do not impede,
the realisation of human rights. States which receive international financial assistance should be
empowered to ensure that the enjoyment of human rights is protected in international loan
agreements. Governments should enhance co-operation on tax matters for combating tax evasion
to help states mobilise the resources necessary for fulfilling their human rights obligations;

8. engage and support an active civil society. Governments should respect the critical role of
NGOs in relation to austerity and their freedoms of expression, assembly and association.
Systematic dialogue, consultation and co-operation should be promoted between authorities and
civil society to make budgeting and austerity measures more effective and tailor them to existing
needs. The impact of budget cuts on the funding of NGOs should be assessed before
implementation so as not to jeopardise civil society's ability to monitor the consequences of
austerity and provide services to the groups affected;

9. guarantee access to justice for all. Governments must guarantee effective access to justice
during economic downturns by maintaining the judiciary, the legal aid system and low-threshold
complaints mechanisms such as ombudsmen and equality bodies. Access to justice can also be
enhanced through public interest litigation and simplified and less costly procedures. Particular
attention should be given to providing assistance and legal aid to disadvantaged and
marginalised groups of people to enable them to voice their complaints;

10. ratify European and international human rights instruments in the field of economic
and social rights. Member states which have not yet done so should ratify the revised European
Social Charter and its collective complaints mechanism, the European Convention on Social
Security and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. Governments should reinforce national implementation of the decisions and
conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights and the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. Economic and social rights should be made justiciable before the
domestic courts;

11. systematise work for human rights. A rights-based approach should be integrated in the
ordinary work of public administration at all levels, including in the formulation of economic
policies and budgeting, to ensure that human rights and equality duties are taken into account in
responses to the economic crisis. Member states should consider the adoption of a national
action plan for human rights to increase the effectiveness of, and participation in, human rights
work while identifying priorities for addressing the effects of the crisis on the enjoyment of
human rights;

12. engage and empower national human rights structures in responses to the economic
crisis. Member states should strengthen the effectiveness and independence of NHRSs, such as
ombudsmen, national human rights commissions and equality bodies, which can protect people
in an accessible way against infringements of human rights resulting from austerity.
Governments should consult NHRSs in decision making on austerity measures and budgets to
benefit from their expert advice on human rights and equality, and the groups that need the most
protection. Member states should ensure that their NHRSs have sufficiently broad mandates,
also in the field of economic and social rights, as well as the expertise and stable funding needed
to cover them effectively.

Introduction

In 2012, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly expressed its concern about austerity
measures and pointed out that "the restrictive approaches currently pursued, predominantly
based on budgetary cuts in social expenditure, may not reach their objective of consolidating
public budgets, but risk further deepening the crisis and undermining social rights as they mainly
affect lower income classes and the most vulnerable categories of the population". |1|

In times of crisis, governments may not immediately view human rights as relevant to the urgent
task of rescuing the economy from the brink of collapse. But as the Commissioner for Human
Rights has argued, "periods of financial dire straits should not be seen as emergency situations
that automatically entail the curtailment of social and economic rights and the deterioration of
the situation of vulnerable social groups. On the contrary, such periods of time should be viewed
by states as windows of opportunity to overhaul their national human rights protection systems
and reorganise their administration in order to build or reinforce the efficiency of national social
security systems, including social safety nets that should be operational when necessary". |2|

This Issue Paper outlines the human rights consequences of austerity measures implemented
across Europe in the wake of the global financial and economic crises, and provides supportive
guidance to the member states of the Council of Europe for upholding their human rights and
equality duties in times of economic constraint. The Issue Paper sets out a series of concrete
recommendations for human rights-compliant responses to the crisis and addresses the important
and unique role of national human rights structures in ensuring that human rights are
safeguarded in the crisis context.

Chapter 1 of this Issue Paper provides a short account of some of the impacts of the economic
crisis and austerity measures on the enjoyment of human rights in Europe.

Chapter 2 presents the human rights norms and standards most relevant in times of economic
downturn and recovery.

Chapter 3 provides concrete guidance on how to effectively implement these norms in practice,
thereby illustrating how human rights law can help to frame and shape the member states'
responses to the complex and urgent economic dilemmas they face.

Chapter 4 concludes by outlining the significant role national human rights structures can play
in monitoring and reviewing the design and implementation of austerity policies and in
providing accountability for the infringements of human rights resulting from austerity.

The Commissioner's recommendations can be found at the beginning of the document.

1. Impacts of austerity measures and economic crisis on the enjoyment of human rights

1.1. A typology of austerity

Europeans are living through the deepest economic recession since the Second World War. What
began as a meltdown of the global financial system in 2007 and 2008 has been transformed into
a new political reality of austerity which threatens over six decades of growing social solidarity,
economic integration and human rights protection across Council of Europe member states.

Government policy responses to the first wave of the economic crisis (roughly 2007 to 2009)
were characterised by unprecedented counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies aimed at
guaranteeing social protection, re-establishing financial stability and stimulating economic
demand to prevent a fullblown global depression. |3| By 2010, however, many European
governments had made the reduction of deficit levels their overriding policy priority. Most
national deficits had not resulted from unsustainable public expenditure before the crisis period
but from public rescues of financial markets (estimated at €4.5 trillion in the EU between 2008
and 2011, or 37% of the region's GDP) |4| and reductions in tax revenue stemming from the
economic downturn and record unemployment. |5| Nonetheless, the policy response of the second
wave of the crisis (2010-2013) was characterised by contractionary fiscal policies, cuts in public
expenditure, selective tax hikes, pension reforms and reductions in labour protection aimed at
curbing public deficits, revitalising the economy and gaining financial market confidence. After
three years of austerity, these chosen measures have not yet achieved their stated aims. |6|

Austerity is a worldwide phenomenon. According to estimates, contractions in public spending
as an ongoing consequence of the global economic downturn are affecting 5.8 billion people or
80% of the global population in 2013, increasing to 6.3 billion or 90% of persons worldwide by
2015. In Council of Europe member states, fiscal adjustment strategies have been remarkably
varied, as have the associated impacts across the region. The policy responses of countries
receiving international assistance have differed from those of countries affected more indirectly
by the crisis. Those Council of Europe member states which are also members of the EU are
subject to specific regulations on economic governance agreed at EU level. It should also be
noted that many European countries have undergone structural reforms in the past which
resemble current austerity policies. Despite the important differences, a general typology of
austerity measures can be deduced both from earlier structural reform policies and those being
carried out across Europe today. In general, austerity measures fall into four types, each with its
own unique consequences for the enjoyment of human rights: a) public budget contractions
affecting social spending, b) regressive taxation measures, c) labour market reforms, and d)
structural reforms to pension plans. |7|

Public social spending has been the primary target of austerity measures in many member states.
This has occurred through wage bill cuts or caps, especially for education, health and other
public sector workers, the rationalisation of social protection schemes, the elimination or
reduction of subsidies on fuel, agriculture and food products, stricter accessibility conditions for
a number of social benefits, and other cuts to education and health-care systems.

Reforms of the tax regime have also been a central part of the austerity mix as governments have
sought to address deficits by recovering revenue lost due to the economic downturn. Many of
these tax reforms have raised considerable sums and offset the need for further budget cuts. Yet
tax increases are rarely neutral in their distributional impact, and some have added extra burdens
to low-income families who already suffer disproportionately from cuts in public services.
Value-added taxes and other consumption taxes have been a preferred strategy of many
governments. If not properly designed with clear exemptions on essential items, consumption
taxes often force low-income people to shoulder high responsibilities for economic recovery as
they spend a higher proportion of their income on food and basic services. Taxes on income,
property and financial transactions, by contrast, generally have more equal distributive effects.

Many governments have engaged in labour reforms with the aim of increasing competitiveness
and supporting business development. These reforms have included eroding collective
bargaining powers, easing dismissals, slowing or reversing salary adjustments to inflation
(namely decreases in real wages) and altering other employment protection regulations. The
empirical case that weakened labour protection drives business development and growth is,
however, questionable. |8|

The fiscal crisis has also provided a context for long-discussed structural reforms to pension
systems. Most Council of Europe member states are considering or have begun such reforms
which expressly aim to go beyond temporary spending cuts by, for example, increasing the
retirement age, reducing retirement benefits and restricting the accessibility of the pension
system. According to the OECD, these measures are unlikely to deliver immediate social
spending reductions. |9|

1.2. Economic, social and cultural rights

Some of the most drastic and lasting human rights consequences of austerity have been in the
domain of economic and social rights. |10|

The first major casualty of the economic crisis and subsequent austerity measures has been the
enjoyment of the right to work. The dramatic spike in seasonally adjusted unemployment in
Europe since 2008 reached historic levels of 12.1% in the eurozone area and 10.9% in the EU27
in June 2013, with depression-level unemployment rates haunting Spain, Greece and Portugal. |11|
As contractionary fiscal policies dampen growth prospects, long-term unemployment is
becoming more entrenched, |12| with long-lasting structural implications. In 2012 alone, the
European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) found 13 countries in breach of their duty under
Article 1(1) of the revised European Social Charter to pursue full employment policies. |13|

A wayward economic recovery, coupled with a weakening of worker protection, is likely to
threaten rights at work, including the rights to fair remuneration, to collective bargaining and to
safe and healthy working conditions. In Spain, for example, the minimum wage remains frozen
well below European Social Charter standards established to guarantee a decent standard of
living. |14| In Greece, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association found repeated and extensive
interventions into free and voluntary collective bargaining and an "important deficit of social
dialogue". |15| High unemployment tends to weaken workers' bargaining power, leading to high
worker vulnerability and lower economic growth rates. |16| Labour exploitation, including child
labour, human trafficking and mistreatment of migrant workers, has been a constant concern of
experts as demand for cheap labour increases, economic conditions deteriorate and fewer public
authorities are available to conduct labour inspections or offer child protection services. |17|

Concomitantly with the setbacks in the right to decent work, the right to an adequate standard of
living has been threatened as a result of austerity measures. The compound effects of setbacks in
decent work opportunities, cuts in social services and regressive tax reforms have contributed to
deepening poverty in Europe. |18| In 2011, the percentage of people at risk of poverty or social
exclusion reached 24.2% in the EU27. |19| In Estonia, for example, the proportion of the population
living below the absolute poverty line (that is, below the subsistence minimum) increased from
8.2% in 2007 to 11.7% in 2010. |20|

The right to social security and social protection has also suffered austerity-related setbacks.
Social insurance and assistance programmes build resilience against social and financial risks
and provide access to essential goods and services, meeting needs which would ordinarily go
unmet in economic downturns. As the crisis has deepened, many member states have faced
exponential increases in demand for social protection. Simultaneously, constrained social
security revenue coupled with austerity and fiscal consolidation has pushed the financial and
administrative capacities of many social protection institutions beyond their limits. |21| Many
governments have chosen to reform pension systems, potentially deepening the increasing
vulnerability and risk of poverty among older persons. In Greece, for example, the ECSR
observed in its decision on a collective complaint that pension reform measures would "risk
bringing about a large-scale pauperisation of a significant segment of the population". |22|

The right to housing has been compromised as a result of the economic crisis. The housing
market crisis at the root of the financial and economic crises, coupled with growing
unemployment, induced a sharp increase in evictions as a result of non-payment of mortgages,
foreclosures and home repossessions in many countries. |23| Since 2007, homelessness has
increased in 15 of the 21 countries monitored by national experts. The crisis has been identified
as a key driver of expanding homelessness in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK.
New groups of homeless have emerged, with homelessness spreading among migrants, young
people, women and families. |24|

The right to food has been affected by austerity measures when governments have limited food
subsidies without adequate safeguards to ensure access to the minimum essential levels.
Reduction in the consumption of staple food was reported as the most frequent coping
mechanism in central and eastern European countries. |25| Food banks are experiencing record lines
in the UK, for example, with cuts to the welfare system the most common reason given. |26|

Many people have faced setbacks in their right to water as a result of austerity. As a condition
for international assistance from the EC, ECB and IMF, new fees for domestic water use have
been introduced in Ireland, for example. |27|

Long-standing concerns about decreased attention to water infrastructure maintenance have been
accentuated as a result of austerity measures, with serious risks associated with the quality and
accessibility of water. Plans to privatise public water utilities have been part and parcel of
several austerity packages which may threaten the affordability of water and the effective
accountability of water suppliers. |28|

The right to education has suffered setbacks, primarily due to reductions in education budgets.
Investment in education fell in one third of OECD countries between 2009 and 2010 as a result
of the economic crisis. |29| Spain cut its education budget by 21.4% between 2011 and 2012, for
example, and Estonia by 10% between 2008 and 2009. Cuts in education subsidies and
scholarships, school teachers' salaries and budgeting for schools affect the quality, accessibility
and affordability of education and can also result in early school dropouts with long-term effects
on the children concerned. |30|

Cuts in health-related spending have affected the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of
health. In Greece, the EC, ECB and IMF have demanded that public spending on health should
not exceed 6% of GDP, with a potentially long-term impact on public health. Latvian budget
cuts in the health sector have undermined the availability of and access to health care. |31| Out-of-pocket fees have increased in many countries despite evidence that the introduction of health co-payment systems is associated with decreased use of health services and worsening health
outcomes for both high-risk and low-income patients. |32| Weakened mental health, substance
abuse and suicide have been linked with austerity measures. |33| Recent improvements in life
expectancies across the region are being compromised due to the crisis. |34|

1.3. Civil and political rights

The rights to participate in public affairs and to transparency through the provision of timely,
accessible and relevant information have suffered as a result of the crisis. Many governments
have speedily drawn up austerity policies, side-stepping regular channels of participation and
social dialogue on the pretext of a national financial emergency. The executive has often been
allotted greater margins of authority to adopt austerity measures without consultation with the
legislature, challenging accepted democratic checks and balances. National-level democratic
decision making is further thwarted by the fact that deficit caps and other key fiscal rules made
at the European intergovernmental level determine spending levels of many national
governments, with little to no participation from those suffering the consequences of cutbacks. |35|

The severity of austerity measures alongside the frequent failure to consult with the people
affected has provoked large-scale demonstrations especially in Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Concerns have been raised about the use of excessive force against demonstrators and
infringements of the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. Harsh reactions to social
unrest may engender mistrust in the democratic system. |36|

Austerity measures have also threatened access to justice by weakening the accessibility and
capacity of the judicial system. |37| Between 2008 and 2010, the budgets of judicial systems were
reduced together with general reductions in public expenditure in Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Hungary, Serbia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. |38| Court fees have also been
increased in some countries as a response to the crisis. In Estonia, for example, state fees for
civil and certain administrative law proceedings underwent two- to five-fold increases in 2009. |39|
In 2011 and 2012 legal aid was subjected to significant cuts in Germany, Ireland and the United
Kingdom, restricting its availability to a more limited number of cases. |40|

Media freedoms have endured setbacks in the context of austerity measures, including in
countries where fiscal contraction has been deepest. |41| Public and private media have suffered
staff and salary cuts and the closure of outlets, including the temporary closure of the Greek
public broadcaster. Not only do these cutbacks contribute to worsening existing problems of
decreasing media diversity, they also threaten the effective operation of a fundamental pillar of
democracy. The ability of journalists to perform their essential educational and watchdog roles
has been impaired, curtailing freedom of expression and the right to be informed.

1.4. Disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged and marginalised groups of people

Full and substantive equality for all, while increasingly protected by law in Council of Europe
member states, remains an enormous challenge in practice, with systemic barriers to equality
further aggravated by the economic crisis. Austerity-driven policy responses to the crisis are
exacerbating already widening inequalities and ingrained discriminatory practices. |42| Those
discriminated against in economic, cultural and social life often also find themselves far from
political decision-making and may not be in a position to speak up against the effects that
austerity measures have on their lives. The victims of multiple and compound discrimination are
especially at risk.

Unemployment, discriminatory and precarious working conditions and rising xenophobia affect
the daily lives of migrants and asylum seekers. Due to budget cuts, fewer resources are made
available for the reception of asylum seekers, programmes to facilitate the social and economic
integration of migrants, and legal aid and access to social and health services. |43| Even though
migrant workers contribute to the tax base, they face increased barriers to accessing essential
social services. In Spain, for example, austerity-prompted reforms have resulted in the denial of
previously guaranteed public health care to undocumented migrants, |44| leaving them exposed to
the increased health risks associated with recessions.

The economic crisis has resulted in a further deterioration of the already difficult economic
situation of many ethnic minorities, including the Roma. Roma are particularly exposed to long-term unemployment and recent figures show that 70% to 90% of Roma in the countries surveyed
live in conditions of severe material deprivation. |45| Anti-Roma sentiment is fuelled by the
economic downturn, making positive measures for the protection of Roma unpopular. |46|
Democracies across Europe have also been seriously threatened by an upsurge of intolerance,
xenophobia and racism and worrying trends of extremism, amplified by the dire economic
situation. |47| Many politicians have chosen to redirect public scrutiny of their conduct by
scapegoating the powerless and blaming the victims - be they ethnic or religious minorities,
migrants or asylum-seekers, Roma or low-income people. Racist acts have all too often been met
by weak state responses. |48|

Structural inequalities and disparities affecting women's enjoyment of human rights have been
worsened by the cumulative effects of several austerity measures, particularly as regards the
rights to decent work and an adequate standard of living. |49| In 2011, women faced a higher risk of
poverty than men in the EU, with rates of 25.2% and 23% respectively. |50| Cuts in public-sector
jobs, pensions and services, including childcare, parental and child benefits, health care and
services to victims of violence and legal aid, affect women in particular. Cuts have also been
made in gender equality programmes. |51| Women who are primary caretakers in the family have
assumed the largely unrecognised burden of care, such as for people with disabilities or children,
which has grown heavier as states reduce staff and financial support and impose stricter
conditions for receiving benefits. As governments recede from social protection and the
uncompensated care economy grows, women's ability to participate on an equal footing in public
and economic life dwindles. |52|

Child poverty and youth unemployment are major concerns which are likely to have long-term
effects. In many countries child poverty has increased even more sharply than poverty rates
among the general population. Austerity measures related to child and family benefits,
generalised unemployment and rising food prices are central issues affecting the well-being of
children. School dropouts, child labour and domestic violence are further concerns. |53| The
correlation of spiralling unemployment among young people under 25 with the crisis years is
undisputed. Over half of all young people are officially unemployed in Spain, Portugal and
Greece, with little improvement expected until 2016. The rate of young people not in
employment, education or training (NEET) has increased by around 1% since 2008 region-wide,
and by 4% and 6% in Spain and Greece respectively, with severe and long-lasting "scarring"
consequences for these young people. |54|

As Europe as a whole ages, and with young people finding an increasingly inhospitable labour
market, intergenerational solidarity is more important than ever. Yet austerity affects older
people as well. Discrimination and stig-matisation on the basis of age in the labour market,
disproportionate cutbacks to pensions, the availability and adequacy of long-term care services
and elder abuse are principal concerns. Older women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of
the crisis as their income/pension is often substantially less than that of men as a result of
cumulative discrimination. |55|

People with disabilities have been acutely affected by unemployment and austerity measures
which have limited their access to personal assistance and reasonable accommodation. Since the
beginning of the economic crisis, the participation of persons with disabilities in the labour
market has decreased in Europe. There is also evidence that austerity budgets have restricted the
access of people with disabilities to community living, education, primary care and assistance,
posing barriers to de-institutionalisation. |56|

The crisis has also had a deleterious impact on the situation of other disad-vantaged groups,
though region-wide documentation has been more limited. For example, some civil society
groups have reported that the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have
been adversely affected by austerity measures, particularly in terms of access to health care and
services. |57|

1.5. Interdependence of human rights and intergenerational effects of austerity

Human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Setbacks concerning economic,
social, cultural, civil and political rights are intimately interconnected and have compound
effects on individuals. Infringement of the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights also
affects the enjoyment of civil and political rights. For example, homelessness and living in
institutions can easily result in a violation of the right to private and family life. Poverty can
become a serious obstacle to the enjoyment of a wide variety of human rights.

Human rights violations related to austerity can also have long-term and intergenerational
effects. The loss of a decent job without an effective social protection programme in place can
quickly lead to eviction from housing and homelessness, and ultimately result in ill health and
even death. |58| Children exposed to poverty and malnutrition in their families may suffer from
stunted physical growth and lasting social and health effects into adulthood. In addition, their
educational achievements are likely to be inhibited, hindering their potential as human beings in
society. An increasing number of children are dropping out of school to find employment and
support their families, risking life-long setbacks in educational achievement. This creates the
conditions for job insecurity coupled with the re-emergence of child labour and exploitation. |59|
As a result, Europe risks producing a "lost generation" of disillusioned young people with
potentially grave consequences for intergenerational solidarity, social cohesion and long-term
political stability. |60|

1.6. Impacts on state capacity and the human rights protection system

Policy preferences for austerity and fiscal consolidation have had systemic consequences on
state capacity and the human rights protection system. Governments are primary human rights
duty-bearers, and thus their effectiveness and competency are of the utmost importance in
ensuring respect for everyone's human rights. Yet there are increasingly worrying signs that the
capacity of the state to protect and fulfil human rights and execute other state functions in times
of crisis is being frayed by successive fiscal consolidation plans. |61|

In many countries budget cuts have targeted public institutions and public employees at the
central and municipal levels, which in some cases could seriously weaken the capacity of the
state to execute its functions effectively. Austerity measures have had serious effects on local
and regional governments which have key responsibilities for providing welfare and social
insurance programmes to their communities. While some countries have resisted cutting funding
to local authorities, countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria and the UK have decreased local grants.
Previously able to shield people from the worst effects of the first wave of crisis, local
governments have faced severe constraints on local resources due to decreases in funding from
the national government, reliance on unstable tax bases and increasing demand for public
services from people no longer able to cope on their own. |62|

The human rights protection system and domestic accountability infrastructure have faced
setbacks in many countries as a result of austerity. Access to justice has been weakened by cuts
in the funding of the judiciary and legal aid. Many national human rights structures (discussed in
Chapter 4) have faced disproportionate cuts or mergers. Some have disappeared altogether. The
non-governmental sector, which often acts as an essential social service provider during
breakdowns in state capacity, has also been affected by diminished public funding.

2. Human rights standards and jurisprudence on austerity

Economic policy is an exercise of state power and as such is subject to human rights norms,
standards and procedural principles. As embodied in international human rights law, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights are not expendable in times of economic hardship,
but are essential to a sustained and inclusive economic recovery. This chapter presents the most
relevant international and regional human rights standards in times of economic recession,
grounded in relevant international jurisprudence and domestic case law. As international and
European human rights monitoring bodies and domestic courts have begun to pay more attention
to the impacts of the crisis, these relevant standards and associated criteria have been further
developed to meet present-day economic conditions. This is particularly the case for states'
obligations to protect economic and social rights, to avoid further erosion and retrogression of
these rights and to prevent disproportionate impacts of austerity measures on particular sectors of
the population.

The UN Human Rights Council affirmed at its Special Session in 2009 that "the global economic
and financial crises do not diminish the responsibility of national authorities and the
international community in the realization of human rights". |63| Similarly, in 2009 the European
Committee of Social Rights stated that "the economic crisis should not have as a consequence
the reduction of the protection of the rights recognised by the [European Social] Charter. Hence,
the governments are bound to take all necessary steps to ensure that the rights of the Charter are
effectively guaranteed at a period of time when beneficiaries need the protection most". |64| In
2012, the Human Rights Council welcomed a new set of Guiding Principles on Foreign Debt and
Human Rights which stipulate that governments have an obligation to ensure the primacy of
human rights when they make lending and borrowing decisions. |65| Likewise, the ECSR, with
reference to commitments made by Greece to the Troika, made it clear that "states
parties...should - both when preparing the text in question and when implementing it into
national law- take full account of the commitments they have taken upon ratifying the European
Social Charter". |66| It follows that states carry the primary burden for proving that any proposed
austerity measures are in line with their standing human rights obligations.

Recent domestic jurisprudence in Latvia, Portugal and Lithuania illustrates the normative
superiority of constitutionally protected human rights principles over unjustified budgetary
measures. In Latvia, the Constitutional Court concurred that international loan provisions
stipulated in the IMF/EC/ECB agreements could not serve as an argument for restricting
constitutionally guaranteed human rights obligations to ensure adequate social security. Both the
social consequences of pension cuts and less restrictive alternatives had to be taken into
consideration when concluding such agreements. |67| In Portugal, the Constitutional Court declared
reduced budget allocations for social rights as unconstitutional and ordered restitution. |68| The
Lithuanian Constitutional Court has articulated specific, strict criteria for assessing when social
rights can be limited during an economic crisis. |69|

2.2. Economic, social and cultural rights norms under austerity

Under international and European human rights law, Council of Europe member states have an
obligation to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social and cultural rights, in times of both
economic growth and stagnation. |70| The principal instruments include the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the revised European Social Charter, the European
Code of Social Security and various ILO conventions. While the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR) is primarily a civil and political rights pact, the European Court of
Human Rights has also found violations of the Convention concerning rights related to social
welfare, health care and housing, for example.

While the full realisation of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights can only be achieved
progressively over time, relevant standards impose obligations of immediate effect, inter alia
non-discrimination (discussed under 2.5.) and minimum core obligations. That is, states have a
direct and immediate duty "to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, "minimum essential
levels' of economic and social rights universally", whatever their level of economic development
or resource base. |71| In times of resource scarcity, governments must deliberately prioritise - in
terms of how they raise revenue and allocate public resources - the achievement of the minimum
core content of rights necessary for ensuring human dignity. |72|

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the European
Committee of Social Rights and domestic jurisprudence in several countries have elaborated on
the content of this minimum core requirement relating to ESC rights. The ECSR has made it
clear that while backsliding in funding for the national social security system is not ipso facto a
violation of the European Social Charter, the European Code of Social Security or International
Labour Convention No. 102 concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security, a minimum,
satisfactory level must be ensured for all people at all times so that they can effectively enjoy the
right to social security. |73| Pension income for older people, for example, must not be lower than
the poverty threshold, defined as 50% of the median income in any given country. The
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has also explained that countries would be
failing in their duties under the European Code of Social Security if social security benefits were
effectively below the poverty line. |74|

The minimum essential levels of the right to work and rights at work are defined through the
jurisprudence of the ECSR and ILO labour standards. The minimum standard of the right to fair
remuneration, for example, is set by the ECSR at a threshold of 60% of the national average
wage, or as agreed by collective bargaining. |75| At national level, while reviewing the
constitutionality of the State Budget Law for 2013, the Portuguese Constitutional Court
established the existence of a guarantee of a "right to a minimum level of subsistence" and found
that this was not put in place by the state when adopting the budget reductions in sickness and
unemployment benefits. |76|

Any failure to meet the minimum core obligations is assumed to be a prima facie violation,
unless the state can demonstrate that "every effort has been made to use all resources that are at
its disposition in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority, those minimum obligations". |77| A
human rights-based social protection floor which protects the universal availability of essential
levels of social services, income, health care, food and housing is increasingly recognised by the
ILO and human rights bodies as the policy embodiment of ensuring the fulfilment of a minimum
core level of ESC rights. |78|

Governments also have a duty to mobilise the maximum available resources necessary for
realising ESC rights. The availability of resources refers not only to the resources under a state's
command at present, but also to resources that could be reasonably and equitably mobilised.
Depending on the national circumstances, marshalling these resources to invest in ESC rights
generally involves re-allocations of existing resources, resource generation through fiscal and tax
policy reforms, monetary policy and financial regulation, deficit financing, debt restructuring
and development assistance. |79| Emphasising the need to consider all financing alternatives to
prevent deteriorations in economic and social rights, the CESCR has stated that any proposed
austerity measures may only be introduced after exhausting all possible alternatives, including
adjustments in tax policy. |80| The obligation of international cooperation and assistance as set out
in Articles 2(1) and 11(1) of the ICESCR implies that states must co-operate with - and not
undermine - efforts of other countries to mobilise the maximum of available resources for the
fulfilment of ESC rights through, for example, increased co-operation to stem tax evasion.

Of particular resonance to the debate over austerity is the prohibition of non-retrogression. As
stated above, states are not required to fulfil all economic and social rights overnight, but instead
must move as swiftly as possible towards this goal by realising the rights over time through
measurable progress. The logical corollary of this duty of progressive realisation is that
governments must avert retrogression in the realisation of ESC rights, even in times of severe
resource constraints such as economic recessions. Actions or omissions which lead to a
deterioration in ESC rights enjoyment, whether through de jure weakened legal protection or de
facto material cutbacks in social services, can only be introduced after "the most careful
consideration" of all alternatives and "would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality
of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum
available resources". |81|

While a good degree of freedom of action is given to the legislature and the executive,
assumptions about the scarcity of funding must be thoroughly analysed, monitored and reviewed
for their reasonableness, rather than simply accepted as a given. A growing body of national
jurisprudence and authoritative interpretations by international bodies has begun to develop a
more evolved set of operational prerequisites and normative criteria to judge whether states'
conduct is leading to unreasonable retrogression in ESC rights. |82| Perhaps the clearest articulation
of the prohibition of non-retrogression was offered by the CESCR in May 2012. The CESCR
established the following criteria for assessing whether austerity or fiscal adjustment measures
would be considered reasonable and justifiable, and thus compatible with the ICESCR:

a. the policy is a temporary measure covering only the period of the crisis;

b. the policy is necessary and proportionate, in the sense that the adoption of any other
policy, or a failure to act, would be more detrimental to economic, social and cultural
rights;

c. the policy is not discriminatory and comprises all possible measures, including tax
measures, to support social transfers and mitigate inequalities that can grow in times of
crisis and to ensure that the rights of disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and
groups are not disproportionately affected; and

d. the policy identifies the minimum core content of rights, or a social protection floor, as
defined by the International Labour Organization, and ensures the protection of this core
content at all times. |83|

States' primary duties are to rights holders within their own jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
governments also have a duty to co-operate and assist one another in the realisation of economic
and social rights, as stipulated under the ICESCR, the Convention on the Rights of People with
Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and prominently
restated by various treaty bodies. This obligation of international co-operation and assistance
implies that Council of Europe member states may incur responsibility for relevant human rights
violations if their conduct - whether individually, through lending policies, through financial
governance agreements such as the EU Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance,
through regional institutions like the European Union, or through international financial
institutions like the IMF - foreseeably impairs the ability of other governments to protect and
fulfil economic and social rights for all. |84| The European Court of Human Rights has made it
clear that states can transfer their competencies to international organisations "provided that
Convention rights continue to be 'secured.' Member states' responsibility therefore continues
even after such a transfer". |85|

The European Union has committed itself to the founding values of "respect for human dignity,
freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights
of persons belonging to minorities". |86| The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
also provides legally binding norms for the implementation of EU law and policies in the area of
ESC rights. The future accession of the European Union to the ECHR is a positive illustration of
a regional body recognising its human rights duties and choosing to submit its conduct to the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

2.3. Civil and political rights

International and European instruments on civil and political rights are also relevant for
monitoring the effects of austerity measures. Non-discriminatory access to justice and remedies,
guaranteed by the ICCPR and the ECHR, is essential for vulnerable groups of people. The state
has a positive obligation under Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR to maintain a functioning
judiciary and to ensure effective access to independent justice and, in certain circumstances,
provide free legal assistance. |87| The right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the
ECHR) demonstrates the interdependence of civil and political rights with ESC rights.
Violations of the right to housing, a central concern under austerity, can breach the right to
private and family life as well. |88|

The freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly are expressly protected under
international and European human rights law |89| and support an active civil society and media,
including their critical engagement against austerity. Any restrictions to these rights must be
prescribed by law, be necessary in a democratic society and be proportionate by taking the least
restrictive measures necessary to achieve the legitimate aim. The disproportionate use of force
by law enforcement officials in the context of anti-austerity demonstrations can result in
violations of the freedoms of expression and assembly. |90| These rights also intersect with the
rights to information and to participate in the conduct of public affairs.

The absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR) may also
be applicable in cases of extreme hardship incompatible with human dignity. The Court has
pointed out that an insufficient amount of pension and other social benefits can raise an issue
under Article 3 of the ECHR. |91| However, the Court has not yet found a direct violation under
this provision with reference to lack of social protection. There is also a need to check that any
austerity measures affecting prison conditions and detention do not reach the severity of
inhuman and degrading treatment under the ECHR or the European Convention for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

2.4. Rights to transparency, participation and accountability

The procedural principles of human rights, especially transparency, participation, accountability
and effective remedy, give guidance on the way officials should conduct the process of
economic policy making from its design to implementation and monitoring. |92| The right to public
participation, protected inter alia by the ICCPR (Article 25) and the CRPD (Article 29), goes
beyond mere electoral rights to include duties to actively involve those affected by social and
economic policy in meaningful channels of participation so that decisions are based on a broad
national dialogue rather than narrow private interests. |93| Transparency is likewise required at all
points in the policy cycle, so that people are able to exercise their right under the ICCPR (Article
19) and the ECHR (Article 10) to accessible, relevant and timely information about policies
which will affect their lives. |94|

In 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called on member states "to
reflect on how such processes could be made more democratic in the future, also with regard to
future economic policy making at the European level, and, in the meantime, act with utmost
transparency when taking any far-reaching decisions which profoundly affect national
economies and people's lives". |95| In recent decisions related to collective complaints about
pension rights from Greece, the ECSR has highlighted the failure of the government to conduct
the minimum level of research and analysis on the effects of austerity measures and assess in a
meaningful manner their full impact on vulnerable groups in society in consultation with the
organisations concerned. |96| The duty to consult stakeholders applies to EU institutions as well
through Article 11(2) and (3) of the Treaty on European Union, which states that "[EU]
institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative
associations and civil society. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations
with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent." |97|

A central concern of human rights is to regulate the exercise of power by providing guarantees
that those in positions of authority are answerable, responsible and ultimately accountable to
those affected by their conduct. States are duty-bound to be accountable and to guarantee
effective remedies and reparation for human rights violations, via accessible and effective
mechanisms (e.g. judicial fora, political institutions, administrative bodies or other quasi- and
non-judicial mechanisms). Accountability is not only backward looking, but can perform an
important preventive function by ensuring that public and private agents align their conduct with
their respective human rights responsibilities and engage in dialogue with rights holders to avert
harmful policies. |98|

2.5. Equality, non-discrimination and positive measures

The mutually reinforcing principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the very heart of
Council of Europe member states' human rights obligations, cutting across each of the
instruments described above. The effective enjoyment of human rights must by definition be
protected for all people, without distinctions based on grounds such as gender or sex, racial or
ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion or belief, or socio-economic status. For discrimination to be eliminated in practice, all people must have effective
access to their rights. Governments have a duty to ensure real and effective equality by pursuing
concrete positive measures in the social and economic spheres which erode, and ultimately
eliminate, de facto and systemic discrimination. |99|

In the sphere of social rights, the "immediate and cross-cutting obligation" of non-discrimination
and equality under the ICESCR |100| requires states to end de jure and de facto discrimination in
the enjoyment of social rights, whether occurring as a result of intentional policy choices or as an
unintentional effect. Given the existence of structural barriers to equal protection of the law and
equal access to socio-economic rights, concrete, deliberate and targeted measures are required to
eliminate discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights to health, housing, decent work, social
security and other ESC rights. |101| In other words, states must concern themselves with who
benefits from particular policies, and actively seek to modify existing patterns of discrimination
and inequality by taking positive steps to ensure substantive equality in the enjoyment of rights.

The CESCR has recognised that the economic and social situation of individuals, or socio-economic status, is among the prohibited grounds of discrimination. |102| While socio-economic
status can be placed in the "other status" category in the open-ended lists of grounds in the non-discrimination provisions of international instruments, it can also be derived from the grounds of
"social origin" and "property" which are specifically mentioned in the ICESCR and the ECHR.
This is particularly important considering how austerity measures have tended to compound pre-existing forms of discrimination against low-income populations.

In fact, poverty and discrimination are closely connected. |103| Discrimination is often a cause of
poverty and economic exclusion, while the denial of full and active participation in economic
life serves as a significant barrier to social inclusion and social welfare for many who live in
poverty. Budget cuts which disproportionately burden a certain category of people have been
considered unconstitutional by some courts, such as the Portuguese Constitutional Court. This
court considered that any tax increases which create unfair burdens on people living in poverty
and are insensitive to income levels would be unconstitutional. |104| ICERD, CEDAW, CRC and
the CRPD protect the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and equality of ethnic
minorities, women, children and people with disabilities respectively and each associated treaty
body has issued concluding observations on ensuring equality in times of economic crisis. |105|

In Council of Europe instruments, the principle of non-discrimination is recognised both by the
ECHR (Article 14 and Protocol No. 12) and by the revised European Social Charter (Article E).
The Court has applied the principle of non-discrimination in conjunction with the right to
education, |106| the prohibition of degrading treatment |107| and social security |108| in affirming the ESC
rights of disadvantaged individuals. The European Social Charter provision covers both direct
and indirect discrimination and includes failing to take due and positive account of all relevant
differences, |109| failing to treat people in different situations differently |110| or failing to take
adequate steps to ensure that rights are "open to all" and genuinely accessible by everyone.

The ECSR has also held, for example, that states must take positive steps to prevent certain
vulnerable groups from becoming homeless. |111| The principle of non-discrimination is recognised
under general EU treaties and specific equality directives, including the Charter of Fundamental
Rights (Article 21). |112|

3. Implementing human rights in times of economic crisis

Human rights norms and standards do not demand precise policy prescriptions. Economic policy
in times of crisis requires a complex decision-making calculus, and governments enjoy a margin
of appreciation in choosing the means for safeguarding rights in times of economic constraint
which best fit their circumstances. Nonetheless, human rights do provide a universal normative
and legal framework, parameters of principles and operational red lines within which
governments' economic and social policies must function. |113| This chapter seeks to demonstrate
how human rights can guide economic policy responses to the crisis in a practical way. The
proposed measures will also serve to reinvigorate the European social model based on a solid
foundation of human dignity, intergenerational solidarity and common cause in the realisation of
human rights for all.

The right to be informed about and participate in public affairs implies a duty of states to
conduct their economic and social policy in transparent ways and allow for public participation
in its design, implementation and monitoring. Council of Europe member states have made
remarkable strides in developing more transparent forms of governance, but these developments
are still incomplete, especially in the economic policy arena. Improvements in access to
information about domestic and regional fiscal policies, including financial sector rescues, would
be welcome. Timely access to such key information as budget and tax policies would better
enable citizen groups, parliamentary commissions, national human rights structures and courts to
monitor and provide oversight of crisis responses.

Improved efforts to collect more comprehensive, disaggregated social indicators, which illustrate
the cumulative effects of austerity, would help policy makers and researchers identify
disproportionate effects, discern whether "measurable progress" is taking place and design more
effective evidence-based policies to protect the most disadvantaged groups. For example,
surprisingly little systematic data on homelessness are made available by Council of Europe
governments, further exacerbating this group's invisibility.

Beyond the provision of relevant information, governments are also required to establish
channels for meaningful social dialogue and citizen participation in economic policy, including,
but not limited to, periodic elections. The forms such participation can take are multiple, but
people's voices should have a consequence in economic policy making. Participatory
arrangements and consultations should be inclusive, reaching out to individuals, NGOs, trade
unions, grassroots movements and the academic community. Meaningful public participation
can improve social outcomes and confidence in the democratic system.

Governments have an obligation to demonstrate that their laws, policies and programmes
contribute to, and avoid undermining, human rights protections. While the European
Commission and the IMF conduct annual economic evaluations of many European countries to
assess and enforce their compliance with fiscal rules, no such arrangement exists to
systematically monitor the human rights consequences of economic policies. Ex ante and ex post
facto human rights and equality impact assessments, as suggested by the CESCR, |114| CEDAW, |115|
CERD |116| and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, |117| can identify the
distributive effects of austerity policies in society and prompt policy makers to prevent them
from being discriminatory.

Periodic independent monitoring would usefully identify and assess the present and future
impacts of economic policy, and ensure that they do not undercut the minimum essential levels
of social rights fulfilment. All such assessments should be conducted in close co-operation with
the groups concerned and their representatives, and should be made public and widely
disseminated to ensure transparency and accountability. Each stage of the policy cycle should be
subject to ex ante and ex post facto assessments, and should consider the full spectrum of
macroeconomic, financial, tax, wage and employment policies being undertaken. In keeping
with the duty of international co-operation and assistance, assessments should also consider
domestic as well as extraterritorial or cross-border impacts of countries' economic policies,
especially when decisions are made within intergovernmental bodies.

Monitoring of this kind would set a human rights baseline which would allow economic policy-makers to learn from previous mistakes and better anticipate the human rights consequences of
their conduct. It would also provide an effective forum for transparency and responsiveness in
policy making. In line with the prohibition of discrimination and non-retrogression, such
assessments would help to ensure that the particular effects of austerity measures on
disadvantaged members of society are known in advance and that effective protection is
provided in crisis responses. They would also provide useful evidence for national administrative
bodies, parliaments, judiciaries, regional bodies and international accountability mechanisms to
better hold decision makers to account. In addition, monitoring of this kind would allow for
empirical comparisons of the human rights consequences of different types of economic policies
across the region.

Implementing the duty to maximise the availability of resources for the full realisation of
economic and social rights involves constant monitoring and oversight over how public money is
spent, what it is spent on, how it is raised and whom it benefits. Comprehensive screening of
budget and fiscal policies for human rights compliance improves the accountability and
transparency of economic policy processes by allowing for open, public debate over budgeting
priorities. |118| Human rights audits of fiscal policy would also assist in providing an objective
assessment of the necessity of fiscal consolidation by identifying all possible resourcing
alternatives to budget cuts, in line with the prohibition of non-retrogression. |119|

In some instances, this could mean the prioritisation of social or health spending through budget
re-appropriations. In other cases, it could uncover the inequalities buried in the tax code of many
countries. Fiscal policy audits would also help to identify and reverse the increasingly
disproportionate fiscal burden borne by low-income people in some countries. In yet other
instances, fiscal policy screening would give evidence of options to broaden the fiscal space in
non-discriminatory ways, discovering areas where resources are being lost, such as through tax
evasion, as well as pointing out situations where equitable tax increases would provide
sustainable resourcing for human rights. Preliminary evidence suggests that opportunities to
expand the resource base are abundant in many Council of Europe member states, both
domestically and through regional co-operation. |120| The recovery of public funds lost to, and
prevention of future, tax evasion in several Council of Europe member states alone would
significantly contribute to the available resource base. |121|

3.4. Promoting equality and combating discrimination and racism

The compound effects of austerity measures are likely to aggravate structural discrimination in
the political, economic and social spheres. The economic crisis has also amplified manifestations
of racism, xenophobia and extremism which question the universality of human rights and
equality. |122| It is essential to maintain comprehensive equal treatment legislation during the crisis,
aimed at preventing and punishing discriminatory practices based on grounds such as gender or
sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion or belief,
and socio-economic status. Positive measures in favour of disadvantaged groups, including
women, are necessary to address disproportionate and compound effects of the crisis and
austerity measures. Governments should mainstream positive steps for promoting equality in
their social and economic policies and public procurement.

Equal treatment legislation enables individuals and groups who are victims of discrimination to
voice their claims for equality and challenge austerity policies which may result in
discrimination. Independent and accessible complaints mechanisms, such as national equality
bodies, should be set up to facilitate access to justice and provide assistance to victims of
discrimination (see Chapter 4). As national jurisprudence and equality bodies increasingly treat
socio-economic status as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the fields of housing,
education and the provision of goods and services, governments should consider including it as
an explicit ground of discrimination in their equal treatment legislation. This would reinforce
efforts to address poverty under equal treatment legislation. |123|

There is a particular need to combat racism, xenophobia and bias-motivated crimes during the
crisis period to prevent any tendencies to scapegoat dis-advantaged and marginalised groups of
people. Racist violence and hate speech have a broad destructive impact on human dignity and
social cohesion. The use of hate speech and bias-motivated offences should be effectively
punished, including where the perpetrators are politicians and opinion leaders. States should take
measures to provide systematic anti-racism training to all law enforcement officials, prosecutors
and judges involved in the investigation and prosecution of racist crimes. Human rights
education in schools is essential for building a culture of tolerance and respect. |124|

3.5. Ensuring social protection floors for all

The maintenance of a robust legal and institutional framework of social protection for all without
discrimination stems directly from international, regional and domestic standards on ensuring the
minimum essential levels of economic and social rights. Social protection is essential for
building resilience to economic risk, especially among the most marginalised groups, averting
intergenerational transmission of poverty, improving food security, disrupting growing income
inequality and maintaining automatic economic stabilisers to prevent the economy from entering
into even deeper recessions. Social protection floors should be developed to ensure the minimum
core content of social and economic rights at all times. |125| Social protection measures have
ensured access to quality essential services and income security across Council of Europe
member states for decades, helping to lift millions of Europeans out of poverty and mitigating
the worst effects of economic downturns. |126| Constitutional guarantees of social protection have
insulated social insurance and social assistance programmes from short-term political and
financial pressures. |127|

Governments should resist the pressure to undermine such essential public programmes. In many
instances, ring-fencing public budgets and other safeguard policies to protect universally
available and accessible social protection programmes are necessary to ensure the fulfilment of
minimum core obligations of economic and social rights in times of economic crisis.
Strengthening legal guarantees of quality social protection also helps guard against backsliding.
Positive measures to end de facto discrimination in access to social protection and to prevent
long-term effects of economic crisis are essential, especially for the most vulnerable population
groups and in disadvantaged geographical areas. Strategies to address poverty and homelessness,
including preventive measures, integrated social protection services, active labour market
policies, monitoring frameworks and ring-fenced budget appropriations, should be included in
national social protection systems. Particular attention should be given to combating poverty
among children. |128|

3.6. Guaranteeing the right to decent work

The rights to fair and equal remuneration for equal work, safe and healthy working conditions,
collective bargaining, freedom from forced and child labour, elimination of workplace
discrimination, and access to unemployment benefits and compensation for employment-related
injuries, should be upheld during periods of crisis. There is also compelling evidence that they
make economic sense. |129| Active labour market policies are needed to protect employment and to
improve the employability of workers. Collective bargaining protections and counter-cyclical
macroeconomic policies, especially those which address wage disparities among different social
groups, have been effective in driving economic dynamism and employment while promoting
equality. Strong support for labour inspectors and child protection agencies is needed to combat
increasing labour exploitation and child trafficking. |130|

Non-discriminatory access to employment and education should be maintained during the
economic crisis. The provision of reasonable accommodation and accessibility is essential for
many minority groups. Positive measures in favour of people with disabilities, Roma and women
should be continued during the economic crisis to improve their labour inclusion. States should
develop and adopt strategies that reduce unemployment from their current rates with a particular
focus on youth and long-term unemployment. Austerity measures should not result in age
discrimination in the remuneration and level of social protection afforded to young workers. |131|

3.7. Ensuring access to justice for all and maintaining the human rights protection system

The judiciary, the availability of legal aid and national human rights structures are central to
ensuring the rule of law, the regulation of public and private services and effective remedies in
times of crisis. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are empty words when the justice
system is inefficient, inaccessible or unaffordable for those who need it most. Governments must
guarantee that access to justice - especially for those most on the margins of society |132| - is not
compromised during economic downturns. Budget cuts and austerity measures should not
disproportionately affect the functioning of the human rights protection system, so that it has
operational stability in terms of staff and resources.

The judiciary has an essential role in protecting the most vulnerable from unjustified
retrogressions in the fulfilment of their rights, and in promoting improved dialogue and
responsive governance. Constitutional courts in several member states have upheld key
economic and social rights under threat from austerity, developed innovative criteria for judging
state compliance with domestic and international human rights standards and devised methods
for remedying and compensating for infringements of these rights. |133| Yet these positive
developments are uneven across member states. Many judiciaries have no mandate for, or are
not sufficiently active in, protecting economic and social rights.

Reforms are needed to guarantee access to justice by reducing the length of proceedings,
providing legal aid and enforcing domestic judgments in a timely manner. Access to justice can
be enhanced through alternative mechanisms including public interest litigation, simplified and
less costly procedures and low-threshold complaints bodies such as ombudsmen or equality
bodies. Particular attention should be given to vulnerable groups, together with legal aid, to
guarantee that they can meaningfully voice their claims against proposed or existing
retrogression in the enjoyment of their rights. There is a need to expand the outreach of low-threshold complaints bodies towards disadvantaged and marginalised groups of people to
improve reporting. |134|

The adoption of a national action plan for human rights, with mandated coordination across
different ministries and branches of government, would systematise the implementation of
human rights and equality duties, promote dialogue and participation and advocate a rights-based
approach in policy making, including in economic decision making and budgeting. |135| A rights-based approach should be integrated in the ordinary work of the public authorities at national,
regional and local levels. A national action plan should identify priorities for addressing the
effects of the crisis on the enjoyment of human rights. It is important to involve all stakeholders
in systematic human rights work, including national human rights structures, civil society and
representatives of disadvantaged groups of people.

National action plans should be directly related to internationally agreed human rights norms. In
order to ensure international and national coherence in the implementation of economic and
social rights, all member states should ratify the revised European Social Charter and its
collective complaints mechanism, the European Convention on Social Security and the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Governments
should also reinforce national implementation of the decisions and conclusions of the ECSR and
the CESCR.

3.8. Engaging and supporting an active civil society

Civil society organisations, including non-governmental organisations and human rights
defenders, play a significant role in monitoring the human rights consequences of austerity,
defending vulnerable groups and providing relief and other services to affected communities.
Governments should respect the critical role of NGOs in relation to austerity and their freedoms
of expression, assembly and association. The use of disproportionate force by law enforcement
officials against peaceful demonstrators should be prevented.

In order to support and enable the participation of civil society groups in policy-making,
systematic dialogue, consultation and co-operation between authorities and NGOs are necessary
to make austerity measures and budgets more effective and tailor them to existing needs. The
impact of budget cuts and other measures on the stability and functioning of civil society
organisations should be assessed before implementation, especially when they jeopardise the
long-term operational stability of NGOs and their ability to provide services to the groups
affected by the crisis. Tax exemptions and other indirect forms of financial support for civil
society groups in times of austerity are to be encouraged.

3.9. Regulating finance in the interest of human rights

Economic and financial crises usually have disproportionate effects on people living in poverty
who face severe risks from macroeconomic instability. Alongside an effective social protection
and accountability infrastructure, human rights standards oblige governments to protect
individuals against human rights abuses involving third parties, including banks, credit rating
agencies, hedge funds or private financial players. |136| Financial abuses may be of an individual
nature, such as through predatory lending practices. They may also be systemic, such as when
the irresponsible, risky behaviour of financial institutions puts national economies at the brink of
meltdown, forcing governments to use public funds to restore their operations.

In these circumstances, the state duty to protect human rights and ensure the availability of
remedies implies the prevention of future financial crises through effective and transparent
financial regulation. The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has
stressed that: "States should ensure adequate means of redress for those adversely affected by the
actions taken by financial sector institutions, and adopt regulations that discourage harmful
practices by providing for accountability mechanisms that penalize risky behaviours and
prosecute perpetrators." |137| Several UN Special Rapporteurs have reminded European
governments that economic reforms must be crafted in line with human rights obligations and
that vital public funds should not be used to rescue financial institutions which engage in
irresponsible banking and financial practices. |138|

3.10. Intergovernmental co-operation and assistance

Social and economic conditions in Council of Europe member states are interdependent. Many
national governments are effectively constrained in their decision making by external forces and
conditions beyond their control. International economic and financial institutions active in the
region, such as the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the European Central
Bank, the Council of Europe Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, alongside private players such as credit rating agencies, are central agents in
framing national economic policies. There is a clear need to improve international co-operation
and assistance in the realisation of economic and social rights, especially when seeking
alternatives to austerity.

Member states should take measures to consider the human rights impacts of their decisions
taken within international institutions, especially financial bodies. The International Monetary
Fund and the European Union have provided much-needed financial support and technical
guidance to countries in severe economic crisis throughout Europe. Yet gaps in transparency,
public participation and democratic accountability plague these decisions. In some cases,
onerous conditionalities have prevented governments from investing in essential social
protection, health and education programmes. In others, fiscal rules have inhibited governments
from using all the tools necessary, including deficit financing, to achieve economic recovery for
all.

States which are members of these institutions have a responsibility to demonstrate that their
decisions prioritise, and at the very least do not impede, the realisation of human rights. States
which are in the position of receiving assistance from international or regional financial
institutions, for their part, should be empowered to ensure that human rights are protected in any
international loan agreements. The international institutions themselves should ensure that all
lending agreements with, and policy advice to, member states comply with human rights
standards. Decisions taken and monitoring carried out by EU institutions should also be
subjected to the agreed fundamental rights guarantees enshrined in EU treaties, including the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The terms of current rescue packages should also be reviewed
from a human rights perspective.

Too often across the region, states' resource bases are severely weakened as a result of cross-border tax evasion. By preventing governments from mobilising resources, such behaviour has
the ultimate effect of impairing state capacity, and by extension the ability of states to meet their
human rights obligations. |139| Council of Europe member states should consider enhanced co-operation on tax matters to ensure that no state infringes another state's ability to mobilise the
resources necessary for fulfilling human rights through the taxation of legal and natural persons
in its jurisdiction. Such co-operation can, for example, be pursued in the framework of the
Council of Europe and OECD Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.
Corruption and money laundering also affect the available resource base and require co-ordinated responses. The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and the Council of
Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from
Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism provide useful fora for international co-operation in
addressing these problems.

4. Role of national human rights structures

National human rights structures (NHRSs) such as independent human rights commissions,
general or specialised ombudsmen and equality bodies are statutory advocates of human rights
and equality and usually act as low-threshold complaints bodies as well. The Commissioner has
highlighted their role in protecting the human rights of disadvantaged and marginalised groups
of people who have often been hit hardest by the crisis. NHRSs can be key partners in times of
economic crisis by virtue of their bridging role between government and civil society, between
the national and European human rights systems, and in connecting civil, political, economic and
social rights. This chapter explores how their multiple functions can be harnessed to more
effectively address austerity-driven human rights deprivations. |140|

4.1. NHRSs promoting and protecting human rights in crisis

Faced with the deepest economic recession in a generation, NHRSs across Europe have begun
responding to the crisis through their mandated functions to promote and protect human rights.
Several institutions have drawn public and media attention to the plight of those
disproportionately affected by austerity policies. Economic and social rights in times of crisis
have been promoted through public conferences, workshops, civil society dialogues and public
statements, for example.

Many NHRSs have also taken steps to protect rights negatively affected by economic policies.
Those with a quasi-judicial function act as a key redress mechanism. The Ombudsman of Latvia
has put particular emphasis on monitoring the implementation of social and economic rights
when examining complaints, carrying out ex officio investigations and issuing statements. |141| The
Ombudsman of Portugal has used previously established specialised hotlines - for children, older
people and people with disabilities - to address austerity-related concerns. Many NHRSs provide
legal assistance and representation for low-income complainants, especially those facing
discrimination, and help respond to cases of xenophobic and racist attacks.

In addition to reacting to the consequences of the crisis and monitoring its impact on a case-by-case basis, some NHRSs have also taken a more proactive approach that systematically analyses
the human rights effects of austerity. The Greek National Commission for Human Rights and the
Basque Ombudsman in Spain, have produced policy papers or recommendations to shine light
on the human rights impacts of austerity and constructively scrutinise austerity policies. |142| The
Equality and Human Rights Commission in the United Kingdom conducted an equality
assessment of the processes of budgetary decision-making used by the Government to determine
whether public bodies, including the Treasury, had "fully considered the potential effects of their
decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect
on these groups could be justified". |143|

Many NHRSs have published specific monitoring reports on the effects of the crisis or provided
advice to the authorities on the issue. The Estonian Chancellor of Justice and the Basque and
Catalonian Ombudsmen in Spain have conducted studies on the impact of the economic crisis
and austerity budgets on children, with particular reference to child poverty. |144| The Spanish
Ombudsman has presented to the senate a compilation of proposals for addressing abuses against
low-income mortgage holders, based on complaints received from people facing evictions and
with the aim of increasing protection for those at risk of poverty and social exclusion. |145| The
Scottish Human Rights Commission has responded to the crisis by giving evidence to the
Scottish Parliament on the implications of the UK Welfare Reform Act, partnering with other
UK institutions to present a joint submission on austerity to the United Nations, and by working
with the Scottish Government to screen the impacts of budget cuts on equality and human
rights. |146|

The breadth and depth of Europe's economic crisis, austerity policies, and the disproportionate
consequences faced by many groups in society have drawn the public's attention to equality,
non-discrimination and human rights. NHRSs have great potential to promote human rights-compliant responses to the crisis and to protect people from discriminatory policies which result
in inequalities. It is not for NHRSs to prescribe specific policy solutions to complex economic
problems. Nevertheless, their unique institutional characteristics put them in a useful position to
alert governments, parliaments and the public at large when austerity policies cross human rights
red lines and threaten effective equality. The examples outlined above point to three key entry
points where NHRSs could deepen their engagement in addressing the human rights
consequences of the economic crisis.

To begin with, NHRSs perform a range of advisory functions to government. Through these
functions they can assess laws, policies, practices and budgets against human rights norms and
equality. This helps to improve transparency and accountability by placing the responsibility
back onto government to justify how their decisions were made. It also helps to translate
universal norms into the national context as recommendations from NHRSs can articulate how
human rights can be prioritised in policy choices and resource allocation. NHRSs are well-placed to monitor the implementation of these policies based partly on the information provided
by complaints and ex officio investigations which give a good indication of emerging problems
and provide an important feedback loop that can guide governments as to where reforms are
needed.

NHRSs and their European networks can also create platforms for dialogue between civil
society, government and international organisations to raise public awareness about the
implications of proposed fiscal policies or legislative reforms, and thereby stimulate the
construction of concrete alternatives. By doing so, they can help facilitate meaningful public
participation in the formulation, implementation and review of relevant policies, as well as
transparency and improved access to information and data gathering necessary to screen
economic policy for human rights compliance. Through strategic partnerships with parliaments
in line with the Belgrade Principles, NHRSs could more effectively conduct human rights and
equality screenings of budgets and fiscal policies. |147|

NHRSs can also help build bridges for carrying out systematic human rights impact assessments
of policies and equality mainstreaming in society. They are well placed to broker interactions
between state institutions such as auditors, statistical offices, government budget departments,
tax inspectors and local authorities, and with universities, researchers, and community
associations. NHRSs can strengthen regulatory bodies by advising them on how to integrate
human rights standards and equality into their reviews.

Finally, NHRSs can help ensure accountability and remedies for human rights violations that
stem from the crisis and the policy responses to it. NHRSs with a quasi-judicial function act as
key redress mechanisms and their outreach towards marginalised and excluded groups makes
them particularly important in this regard. Beyond individual complaints, many NHRSs have an
ex officio investigatory function, which makes them well placed to look into systemic or
structural issues, in order to uncover hidden disadvantages and discrimination faced by particular
groups. When this is included in their mandate, NHRSs may refer cases of austerity-driven
human rights infringements to court or make amicus interventions to guide courts on how to
apply international human rights instruments when reviewing fiscal policies. Where the legal
system allows, NHRSs may pursue public interest litigation themselves.

4.3. Empowering NHRSs in times of fiscal austerity

NHRSs are key hubs in the entire human rights protection system. Their effectiveness and
independence are essential factors for an empowered system of accountability in times of
economic crisis. Despite promising practices in several countries, many structures are facing
significant limitations in this regard. The effectiveness of many institutions is restricted by cuts
in available resources and a condensed space for public dialogue and interaction concerning
economic policy. In some countries, the independence of NHRSs is being compromised because
of shortcomings in their mandates or through political pressure. Governments should respect the
integrity of NHRSs and consult them in policy making and budget processes so that their
independent and expert advice on the groups that need the most protection is channelled into
decision making. This includes sharing proposed laws and policies early in their formulation
stage so that NHRSs have a genuine opportunity to review and advise on their likely impact on
human rights and equality. |148|

States should ensure that their NHRSs have broad mandates in accordance with the UN Paris
Principles, |149| including powers to address economic, social and cultural rights. It is important
that equality bodies are mandated to deal with discrimination related to socio-economic
disadvantage. The inclusion of socio-economic status as a prohibited ground of discrimination in
equal treatment legislation empowers equality bodies to take poverty into account as a factor in
limiting people's effective enjoyment of human rights. |150|

Currently, NHRSs are often forced to do more with less under budgetary pressure. Demand for
NHRS services has increased, while many institutions have simultaneously experienced budget
and staff cuts, the closure of regional offices or mergers into less-focused structures. For
example, NHRSs in Greece, Ireland, Latvia and the UK have faced cuts in their budgets and staff
which may hinder their effectiveness. |151| Dwindling human and financial resources and
uncertainty over future resources are putting NHRSs in a difficult position as regards ensuring
easy access for vulnerable groups to their services and advancing more ambitious, forward-looking projects such as monitoring budget measures. Stable resource allocation for these critical
institutions should be maintained during the crisis and any moratorium on recruitment in the
public sector should not apply to them.

Limited resources also hamper NHRSs' capacity to expand their proficiency in responding to
fiscal austerity. Uneven expertise within institutions in social and economic rights and a general
lack of experience and training in fiscal policy, corporate law and financial products keep many
institutions from realising their full potential to promote human rights-compliant responses to the
crisis. There is a need for improved opportunities for staff training on these issues.

The trend towards increased European co-operation among NHRSs provides an important
channel for comparative analysis of the impacts of fiscal austerity and appropriate responses,
from which individual institutions can learn and which can inform regional-level advocacy. The
European networks of NHRSs, such as the European Network of National Human Rights
Institutions (ENNHRI) and the European Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet) give them a
collective voice to engage in agenda setting at the regional level, which is important given the
critical role of European organisations in determining national economic policies. The European
organisations of economic governance should engage with the European networks of NHRSs
and seek their advice on ensuring that human rights and equality are taken into account in the
design, implementation and monitoring of European economic policies and fiscal regulation.

[Source: Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, Strasbour, Nov13. This Issue Paper was prepared by Nicholas Lusiani, Senior Researcher at the Center for
Economic and Social Rights (CESR), and Ignacio Saiz, CESR Executive Director.]

Appendix 1 - European Social Charter: signatures and ratifications

The dates in bold correspond to the dates of signature or ratification of the 1961 Charter (ETS
No. 35); the other dates correspond to the signature or ratification of the 1996 revised Charter
(ETS No. 163).

16. ILO, "Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led? National and global effects, Conditions of Work and
Employment Series No. 40", Working Paper, 30 October 2012. [Back]

17. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, 12
August 2009, A/64/290; UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and
consequences, Mission to Romania, 30 June 2011, A/HRC/18/30/Add.1; Report of the UN Independent Expert on
foreign debt and human rights, 13 August 2012, A/67/304. [Back]

27. IMF, "Ireland: Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and Technical
Memorandum of Understanding; Letter of Intent and Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy
Conditionality", 28 November 2011. [Back]

28. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina
de Albuquerque, 11 July 2013, A/HRC/24/44; Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), "The Global
Financial and Economic Crisis and the Water Sector", 2009. [Back]

51. EC, "Women and men in the crisis", Research note 4/2012; European Women's Lobby, "The Price of
Austerity", 2012; J. Butterworth and J. Burton, "Equality, Human Rights and the Public Service Spending Cuts: Do
UK Welfare Cuts Violate the Equal Rights to Social Security", The Equal Rights Review, Vol. 11, 2013. [Back]

62. PACE, Resolution 1886, "The impact ofthe economic crisis on local and regional authorities in Europe",
26 June 2012; Council of Europe, "Local Government in Critical Times: Policies for Crisis, Recovery and a
Sustainable Future", 2011. [Back]

63. Human Rights Council Resolution S-10/1 "The impact of the global economic and financial crises on the
universal realization and effective enjoyment of human rights", para. 5. [Back]

78. ILO, Recommendation concerning national floors of social protection, No. 202, 2012; "Report of the
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of the global economic and financial crises
on the realization of all human rights and on possible actions to alleviate it", 18 February 2010, A/HRC/13/38, paras.
21 and 25. [Back]

80. CESCR, "Letter on behalf of the Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to all States Parties
to the ICESCR on the protection of rights in the context of the economic and financial crisis", 16 May 2012; Report
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of austerity measures on economic,
social and cultural rights, 2013, E/2013/51. [Back]

83. CESCR, "Open Letter to States Parties regarding the protection of rights in the context of economic
crisis", 16 May 2012. [Back]

84. The content of the duty of international co-operation and assistance in relation to specific rights is further
elaborated in inter alia CESCR General Comments Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19. See also Maastricht Principles
on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 31. [Back]

104. Constitutional Court of Portugal: "Penalising a given category of people, in a way that is made worse by
the combined effect of this reduction in pay and the generalised increase in the fiscal burden, undermines both the
principle of equality with regard to public costs and the principle of fiscal justice." Ruling No. 187/13, 5 April 2013. [Back]

112. See also FRA, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Handbook on European non-discrimination law, 2011. [Back]

113. R. Balakrishnan and D. Elson, "Auditing Economic Policy in the Light of Obligations on Economic and
Social Rights", Essex Human Rights Review Vol. 5 No.1, July 2008; Economic Policy and Human Rights, New
York, Zed Books, 2012; I. Saiz "Rights in Recession? Challenges for Economic and Social Rights Enforcement in
Times of Crisis", Journal of Human Rights Practice Vol. 1 (2), 2009; I. Saiz, N. Lusiani and S.A. Way, "Economic
and Social Rights in the 'Great Recession': Towards a Human Rights-Centered Economic Policy in Times of Crisis",
in Contemporary Issues in the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Oxford University Press
(forthcoming). [Back]

114. CESCR, "Open Letter to States Parties regarding the protection of rights in the context of economic
crisis", 16 May 2012. [Back]

131. ECSR, The General Federation of employees of the National Electric Power Corporation (GENOP-DEI) and Confederation of Greek Civil Servants' Trade Unions (ADEDY) v. Greece, complaint No. 66/2011,
decision on the merits of 23 May 2012. [Back]

132. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, 9 August 2012, A/67/278. [Back]

133. T. Birmontiene, "Challenges for the Constitutional Review: Protection of Social Rights during an
Economic Crisis", 2012. [Back]

134. The Commissioner for Human Rights, "Re-thinking Access to Justice in Practice", Address to
Fundamental Rights Conference 2012, 7 December 2012; the Commissioner's Human Rights Comment, "NHRSs
can help mitigate the effects of austerity measures", 31 May 2012. [Back]

135. The Commissioner's Recommendation on systematic work for implementing human rights at the
national level, CommDH(2009)3. [Back]

This document has been published on 11Mar14 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.